Joe Brown

I went to UCLA LAW with brother Joe …1971-1974. He’s an expert on firearms and ballistics, or at least professed to be. He certainly knew more than me. He could talk for hours about guns. And, he was always a law-and-order guy. I came away, after discussions with him, feeling he sort of didn’t care for certain people and being totally aware of the abuses (“slavery” as a way of life) of the dominant society, aka maybe Stockholm syndromed.

He makes points. I had discussions with him and spoke about various topics regarding the law, prisons, violence and the plight of African Americans. We didn’t debate, so much as discuss. I listened and responded on various issues.

He always wanted to be a judge. He always spoke and acted like one. He’s the real deal, as far as I can tell. But, I didn’t and don’t agree with his perspective, exaggerations and generalizations. The last I heard, he was headed back to Tennessee, from which he came. Good riddance for California!

Joe’s problem is simple: Analogy and generalization, as illustrations, re not necessarily congruent with the facts. In the interview he glosses over the question of the caliber of the bullet or projectile that, apparently, cause the death of the victim. Likewise, he dismisses discovery of physical evidence having probative value. Therefore, he essentially says, ‘don’t bother looking for it.’ Entry and exit trajectory does have forensic value, which can have relevance to truth.

I’m no doctor. And, I don’t think entirely dissecting a dead body and analyzing tissues and organs microscopically is necessary or called for. A coroner’s finding should be supported by facts of examination and that autopsy should be available to support the facts and determinations.

Joe knows that. I vividly recall a discussion I had with him on the difference between a wound made with a .22 versus a .357 magnum bullet, and the damage caused by either to gelatinous substances (skin, ligaments, veins, arteries, etc.). We discussed entry wounds, fragmented lead that would break apart, massive internal bleeding and the destruction of tissues, bone disintegration. The percussive shock wave propagation, based on muzzle velocity and mass of the bullet (projectile), alone, created a difference (power delivered) between the .22 and the .357. I think we were discussing gun control and criminal access to such weapons. At the time, cops were using 38 caliber side arms, whereas the .357 was in circulation.

To my knowledge, Joe didn’t serve in the military — although he might have. But, what started my conversation with him on the topic was the fact that I’d fired a .45 in boot camp. I found that it was very difficult to accurately hit a target more than 25 feet away. For some reason, the weapon would kick at ignition causing the barrel to move before the bullet exited the barrel. Trying to compensate for the movement of the weapon didn’t necessarily increase the odds of success (you still might miss). That’s the bad news. The good news is that if a .45 bullet hit you’d likely seriously injure or incapacitate the enemy. The bad news is that an incapacitated enemy is still alive and might have a weapon that was more accurate. In short, good for close range (like shooting someone 3 feet from you).

In short, I judge the judge “It Makes Sense:” Bullshit!

Here’s what makes the most sense: Intelligence randomly distributes in human populations, as does ignorance. It’s got nothing to do with the color of a human’s skin or gender. Prove me wrong!

Just remember. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/23/464129029/donald-trump-i-could-shoot-somebody-and-i-wouldnt-lose-any-voters